Government ministers have had a bad week with numbers.
In Health, Matt Hancock has cut the official Covid-19 death toll by 5,000 and blamed Public Health England for running the pandemic badly.
In Education, Gavin Williamson has made a second U-turn on downgraded exam numbers in less than a week and blamed Ofqual for the algorithm blunder.
In Transport, Grant Shapps had to learn to count to 14 and then closed France.
In Finance, the economy went into recession while Rishi Sunak’s £15k stamp duty reduction reportedly pushed house prices up by £30k.
In Housing, Robert Jenrick avoided numbers entirely, replacing them with a fog of marketing-speak, underpinned by a formula of labyrinthine complexity.
Housing, by Diktat
MHCLG, responsible for Housing Communities in Local Government (or something like that) has been busy of late.
On August 6th they launched a white paper to reform planning; together with an explanation; a press release; a change to the planning system; a call for evidence; a study into developer contributions; a Task Force; and a “guidance letter”.
The white paper “Planning for the Future” wasn’t white, it was a glossy sales brochure instead.
And the language!
Whole swathes of text had hard-bitten wordsmiths in tears, as the context-free prose waxed lyrically onwards and ever upwards, on its way to a panoply of panegyrics in a paean of plausible politicking.
Never, in the field of government papers, have so many words … meant so little … to so few.
I’d offer a translation, but it’s beyond me.
If the white paper consultation was Rococo technicolour, the changes to the current planning system consultation came across as monochromatic Brutalism.
Goodbye planning departments, planning committees and planning inspectorate – MHCLG wants it all slimmed down, made quicker, with less cost for developers.
Centrally controlled. Formulaic. Three types of land: already built; not yet; and yippee!
Housing by Numbers
Back in 2018 when Sajid Javid was “Fixing our broken housing market” (he didn’t), the ministry proposed a formula for calculating housing numbers for each of England’s principal councils, along with a spreadsheet showing each council’s “number”. Wokingham’s was 876 per year.
The result was uproar and the outcomes got negotiated.
This time, they’ve refused to publish any more than the formula and without access to information that isn’t readily available to the public – you’re stuck.
Luckily, the Lichfields planning consultancy have come to the rescue and they’ve calculated and published the numbers for at least 310 of England’s 339 principal councils.
Others worse off
Contrasting 2018 with 2020, here in Wokingham, our number has nearly doubled, going up from 876 to 1635 homes per year.
Undoubtedly bad, but it doesn’t even make the top ten.
Compared with other Councils, Wokingham Borough’s percentage rise (87%) puts us in 55th place while the numerical rise (+759) puts us 27th.
Overall there’s 64 councils whose residents are worse off than we are (percentage or numerical or both).
Spare a thought for Richmondshire with the biggest percentage (786%). It’s going to be a big shock to residents when they find out. Likewise, residents in Maldon (106%), Cannock Chase (95%), and Tamworth (92%) won’t be impressed either.
Spare a thought also for Westminster with the biggest numerical rise (+4,255). Also for residents of Barnet (+1,618) and Hillingdon (+1,431) too.
And in case you’re wondering what links all these apparently random boroughs together …
When residents write to their MPs about percentages, they’ll be complaining to Rishi Sunak, Pritti Patel, Amanda Milling and Christopher Pincher. On numericals they’ll be complaining to Nickie Aiken, Boris Johnson, and Oliver Dowden.
So that’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, the Minister for Housing, a back bencher (and former Leader of Westminster Council), the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary respectively.
The last word
You might wonder what else links the 64 councils that are worse off than Wokingham ?
Of the 133 MPs their residents elect, just over 80% of them are Conservatives.
Oops.
Robert Jenrick’s local council (Newark & Sherwood: +254) is waaay down the league table (as are most of Wokingham’s neighbour councils).
Next Week: Don’t get mad – get focused.
